Well its not that there no evidence for it, its been documented that the actual real life event was probably about King Thiazudra(sp.) who lived about 150miles south of what we now call Bagdhad. During a storm when the water rose by something like 22m, he filled his boat full of his precious goods etc and travelled down the Euphradies to run aground on top a hill etc, safe an sound. So the story has basis, but i agree, its such an awful awful idea for a movie, and i expect it to bomb in the cinemas.

The very action of making this movie, is propaganda. There was never such an event as ridiculous as Noah and the Ark. There is no evidence for such an event and on the contrary there is evidence to the contrary. I can't believe we think we live in a democracy. This is religious propaganda. I hereby declare to never watch another Aronofsky film.

I completely agree with this person.

After watching Clash of the Titans I went out and burned the nearest religious institution I could find and pledged my allegiance to Zeus.

Hail Zeus.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

My problem is when biblical stories are turned into films as persuasive arguments in the realm of popular culture. Animals were not delivered by an ark, they evolved.

And they also don't talk, but Disney tells us otherwise.

quote:

That's great news. The greek myths needs your support. Let's steal it back from the clutches of myth and resurrect it as the great religion it once was. It shouldn't be too hard as there's a very fine line between religion and myth. A fine line of the denial of rational thinking.

So treat it as a myth. I do. I'm a lovely, lovely atheist and love the likes of Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt. Why? Because they're excellent yarns just like the many, many other myths of the world.

If people want to believe in them, that's their choice but to say this film is going to be sort of religious propaganda is ridiculous.

I hardly think Arronofsky is making this film to disprove evolution - it's just a story. You really think he's going to cram EVERY TYPE of species on to a boat OR use it as an analogy?

Let me riddle you this. If Ridley Scott's Prometheus was all about how the Greek titan gave mankind fire, would you say that was also spreading propaganda?

< Message edited by Timon -- 1/12/2011 12:06:08 PM >

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Kind of like that hack John Huston. The "a rebel" and "renaissance man" of the Hollywood film industry who did The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The African Queen, The Man Who Would Be King, oh and The Bible: In The Beginning.

And he's hardly complementary of religion in his films...

I honestly think you're fretting over nothing. If you believe in evolution (which I do), a film about Noah's Ark is hardly going to convert you (or many other people). Plus I honestly doubt it'll be "as written" in The Bible but a little more metaphorical.

Plus God's a bastard in it. Hardly the best example of the loving Christian faith.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

For the record. I believe that Bale declined this role for the same reason that Fassbender will. This role is a career killer. You will alienate non religious audience members from the get-go.

Just like Charlton Heston's career sank without a trace and no-one went to see Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Oh wait.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Also, I'd like to add that if they DO stick heavily to the source material I would definitely like to see a film where a 900 year old man tries to round up every animal on the planet.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Charlton Heston died not long ago. He was the head of the American rifle association i.e a pig headed gun toting religious bigot.

He may have been fond of the guns, but the man was hardly a bigot. He was a big supporter of the Civil Rights Movement and of Martin Luther King Jr.

Hell, during the 60s he was a Democrat and called for tighter gun control measures.

Also, Fassbender is Irish-German... I'm just saying.

< Message edited by Timon -- 1/12/2011 12:49:23 PM >

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

The actors you use are all of a different time when religion wasn't a dirty word and biblical epics were popcorn films. Give me a modern example and make this a convincing debate. No A list actor working today will touch biblical epics. What was the name of the guy who played Christ in Mel Gibsons film? we can't remember can we?

Jim Cavizel.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

The actors you use are all of a different time when religion wasn't a dirty word and biblical epics were popcorn films. Give me a modern example and make this a convincing debate.

Ok. I can play this game (I take it I'm not allowed to use the record breaking Passion of the Christ?)

The Prince of Egypt - 1998

Dreamwork's first major animated film, not only features a Old Testament story but features the likes of Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes (British), Patrick Stewart (British) and Michelle Pfieffer.

Plus it also had songs.

A religious cartoon musical! It must have flopped like a dead horse.

No wait, it made over $200 million worldwide

< Message edited by Timon -- 1/12/2011 12:53:23 PM >

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

But now you're implying that Britain has no Christians in it? Granted we're not as religious as the US, but the UK is not as militantly atheist as you believe.

Plus you don't even know how the director will portray the 'legend/myth/story/

It could just be an Old Testament apocalyptic movie.

All I'm saying is that with the little facts we do have, you are working yourself into quite a state.

Oh and Caviezel has a hit show on CBS (Person of Interest).

< Message edited by Timon -- 1/12/2011 1:08:28 PM >

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

You’ve described your first film, “Pi,” as being about “God, math, Kabbalah, and paranoia,” and you cited the Bible as part of the inspiration for “The Fountain.” What’s your own religious background?

Culturally, I am Jewish. I was raised slightly Jewish, with respect for my culture and my ancestry, but with an open mind to the connectivity of people.

How much of a role does that play in your filmmaking?

There are a lot of different religions represented in “The Fountain.” It starts off with a quote from Genesis, the Judeo-Christian text, and there’s also a lot of Buddhist, Hindu, and Mayan mythology and spirituality throughout the film. What’s always interested me is very similar spiritual shelf at the core of all these different religious beliefs. What’s holy and truthful is what connects all the different religions, and it’s the same place where myth spurts out. I try to get to that core and represent it in the film.

The very action of making this movie, is propaganda. There was never such an event as ridiculous as Noah and the Ark. There is no evidence for such an event and on the contrary there is evidence to the contrary. I can't believe we think we live in a democracy. This is religious propaganda. I hereby declare to never watch another Aronofsky film.

I'm sure Darren will be losing sleep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale

Yes I agree. The old Chinese whispers thing, that'll do it. Well it follows that Jesus probably didn't part the water but just parted his hair one day by the water. Likely he never died on the cross but died when he was cross at a friend who had beat him in backgammon that afternoon.

I'm not a Christian, I do however love my history and Roman records have proven that there was a prophet (i.e. the people who spread the doom and gloom messages on the street corners) named Jesus who was crucified. The Romans treated him in exactly the same way they treated every other insurgent.

Prince of Egypt. Ace up your sleeve. Hmmm. Ambiguous title really isn't it? Doesn't really shout pro religious Biblical epic like the Passion of The Christ. I wonder if it's marketing campaign utilized the myriad of christian media channels. They would have made 200 million in no time. 1998 though, that's pre 9/11. We weren't yet reminded of the dangers of religious claims.

This is getting religulous. Quite literally

Doesn't shout pro religious Biblical epic? It's about Moses! And the Exodus! And the 10 Commandments!

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

As if it's not enough to screw over the ecology of this planet we have to go further and lie about the origin of all living things in a completely human-centric way.

He's not doing Genesis: The Movie.

quote:

If a creationist god put them there in the first place, he's probably slowly erasing them too right? All part of a grand plan? Well this plan sucks.

For all we know, Aronfosky's Noah will think the same.

I honestly be surprised if God showed up in this film.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Funkyrae, I don't care what Darrens doing as long as he's not making unverified scientific claims about animal migration.

quote:

'I do however love my history and Roman records have proven that there was a prophet (i.e. the people who spread the doom and gloom messages on the street corners) named Jesus who was crucified. The Romans treated him in exactly the same way they treated every other insurgent

I'm glad you enjoy those Roman records, I prefer Beatles records myself and something else called scientific evidence. I find it much more useful than historical records written by historiographers who may or may not have religious persuasions. I'll take a fossil over a Roman record any day.

Oh, thank you for enlightening me. Now I understand. He's really open minded about all these religions and how their bogus stories overlap. That's so profound, yet not new to me as a man of science. If only religious people could all see what Aronofsky sees. but they so often choose not to see things in that way and stick by the one religion they were most likely indoctrinated into by their parents and communities. Are we forgetting someone though? Oh that's right, the rest of the biosphere. After all this is their story he proposes to tell. On their behalf I would like to say that it's not good enough. As if it's not enough to screw over the ecology of this planet we have to go further and lie about the origin of all living things in a completely human-centric way.

The egocentricity of human thinking when consumed with religious belief contributes to the continued struggle of animals everywhere. If a creationist god put them there in the first place, he's probably slowly erasing them too right? All part of a grand plan? Well this plan sucks and so does Aronofsky for perpetuating it.

Oh goody, a call-out. Haven't had one of those in a while. A couple of things.

A) This film hasn't even entered production yet. You're basing your assumptions of 'religious propaganda' based on the twin ideas that "people are stupid" and "Hollywood is a big cabal of Christian propagandists advancing a nefarious agenda". Given Aronofsky's history with filmmaking that, while making overtures towards specific religions, generally focuses on spirituality and its effects on people, and given the fact that this is a project he's building from the ground up, I'd be really damn surprised if this ended up being some kind of vehicle for Catholic propaganda or whatever simply because my assumptions are grounded in an assessment on the facts we have available. Your assumptions are basically Noah = propaganda and you're fitting everything else around it. Ultimately, it's far more likely Aronofsky will treat it as the parable it is rather than some kind of docudrama stating absolute fact.

B) Get off your high horse, "man of science". You're getting livid with Arts students on an internet forum because we don't believe that a film made by a filmmaker with a proven track record in dealing with spirituality without condoning or promoting religion will make a film promoting religion. You need some perspective bro.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

I'm glad you enjoy those Roman records, I prefer Beatles records myself and something else called scientific evidence. I find it much more useful than historical records written by historiographers who may or may not have religious persuasions. I'll take a fossil over a Roman record any day.

Of course, that's not proof of an Ark... but maybe, just maybe... it's an analogy. Or a myth.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

But now you're implying that Britain has no Christians in it? Granted we're not as religious as the US, but the UK is not as militantly atheist as you believe.

I never implied there were no Christians in Britain. But you don't need to be a Christian to be elected the Prime Minister of the U.K. That's a very important distinction. No atheist or non Christian could be sworn into the US presidency. That's a very dangerous religious atmosphere.

Plus you don't even know how the director will portray the 'legend/myth/story/

True. I hope he makes it a rom com between Noah and the human lady in a stable in the galley.

It could just be an Old Testament apocalyptic movie.

Well then Noah Emmerich should do it.

All I'm saying is that with the little facts we do have, you are working yourself into quite a state.

I'm just passionate about animals being misrepresented.

Oh and Caviezel has a hit show on CBS (Person of Interest).

I was a bit harsh on Jim. TV's not my strong suite. CBS is that the Christian Broadcasting Station

Funkyrae, I don't care what Darrens doing as long as he's not making unverified scientific claims about animal migration.

quote:

'I do however love my history and Roman records have proven that there was a prophet (i.e. the people who spread the doom and gloom messages on the street corners) named Jesus who was crucified. The Romans treated him in exactly the same way they treated every other insurgent

I'm glad you enjoy those Roman records, I prefer Beatles records myself and something else called scientific evidence. I find it much more useful than historical records written by historiographers who may or may not have religious persuasions. I'll take a fossil over a Roman record any day.

Excellent - you ignore those historians. It makes you so much more credible. In the meanwhile, why not try denying the holocaust or pretending that Hiroshima didn't happen or maybe, I know, forget that there was ever a ship called The Titanic. Or, better still and this is a groovy one, forget that the Hittites, Sumerians and Babylonians ever existed and helped to create the written word because you know, that's just history.

Again, just so as you know, those particular Roman records that you're so casually dismissed are a matter of historical fact and were part of the census and so are written as fact without any religious persuasion.